Mostly, not being able to whore one gametype. That, and the more factors held constant, the harder it actually is to make a match. That's why they made different playlists.
You mean like despite being released in an awful state, and eventually being split into two incompatible versions, Halo PC did so remarkably well that Doom 3 only beat it in sales for a month?
The Accelerate framework in OS X can utilize SSE3 instead of Altivec so that existing OS X programs which use SIMD abstractly can simply be recompiled for x86. SSE2, however, is not comparable enough to Altivec to work.
Probably they decided to sell the laptops for so low a price because the taxpayers had already subsidized their original purchase. For them, there wasn't much in the way of a lowest price they were willing to sell for, so there wasn't really an equilibrium price where their willingness to sell just met the buyers' willingness to pay. However, pricing things at an equilibrium price does not merely act to maximize the mutual benefit of buyer and seller, but it also acts as a means of allocating the product to those most willing and able (in a purely economic sense) to buy it. Obviously there are cases where giving something to the person willing to pay the most doesn't seem fair, but giving it to whomever happens to show up first doesn't necessarily seem so fair either. And what's more, it leads to nonsense like this.
They either should have charged more, or had some sort of raffle.
Not only have they violated Microsoft's patents, but by copying from anyone at all they have violated/.'s patent on duplication of a pre-existing entity.
How is I/O Kit, which isn't even compatible with other Mach-like systems, going to be compatible with the same devices as other Unix systems? That's like saying that BeOS should support the same hardware Windows NT does because they're both kernel-based.
Not only is this a dupe, but the summary claims that the link is a Wikipedia article. Guess what--not every site running MediaWiki is WIkipedia. In fact, I'm pretty sure that only Wikipedia is Wikipedia.
This is not a problem with evolution, it is a problem with cosmology--specific the "prime mover" problem. In terms of evolution, the Miller experiments have demonstrated the plausibility of abiogenesis.
But I don't see how creationism helps, anway? How does it account for the fact that God has to from from something? If you trace the creation of God back to it's furthest roots, you'll hit a brick wall every time.
Since when has the theory of gravity *ever* lended itself to the scientific method? It is UNOBSERVABLE...
Where is this fabled magical Higgs Boson? How are we supposed to see the curvature of space-time? In fact, these two explanations contradict each other. Scientists can't even make up their minds, and we are supposed to beleive such an outlandish theory?
Now don't tell me that seeing things falling is evidence of gravity. That's as stupid as saying that seeing creatures change over time is evidence of evolution. Sure, we may have a fossil record for evolution. We may be able to explain the basic mechanics by which organisms evolve. The corpus of evidence for it may be larger than that of gravity.
But it doesn't matter. Gravity is a fantasy, and so is evolution. We should give equal time to Aristotelean mechanics in the classroom, unless we want to be biased in favor of English faith over Greek faith.
There are philosophical arguments for and against intelligent design, but this is an area where philosophy and science intersect. Paley's argument of intelligent design was largely based on the fact that there was no other plausible explanation for the complexity we see on Earth. Science has given us such a plausible explanation, however.
I would also argue that the Intelligent Design people are not serious advocates of formal teleological arguments, and most of them probably haven't even heard of Paley.
I've always speculated if light can be affected by gravity then it's really not a constant
c is a constant. Say that at location A there is little gravity affecting light. It takes a time of X to travel Y distance. At location B there is more gravity affecting light. It still takes time X to travel Y distance. If the speed of light is "slower," your perception of time is also altered.
Of course, if different parts of the galaxy have different laws of physics, or if the laws of physics change over time, that would make things a lot harder.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a decent enough point that there's no need to surround it with irony and personal attacks.
I don't think the current political climate lends itself to releasing a new AO-rated game.
Actually, YAIM stands for YAIM Ain't an Instant Messenger.
Mostly, not being able to whore one gametype. That, and the more factors held constant, the harder it actually is to make a match. That's why they made different playlists.
You mean like despite being released in an awful state, and eventually being split into two incompatible versions, Halo PC did so remarkably well that Doom 3 only beat it in sales for a month?
The Accelerate framework in OS X can utilize SSE3 instead of Altivec so that existing OS X programs which use SIMD abstractly can simply be recompiled for x86. SSE2, however, is not comparable enough to Altivec to work.
Fortasse non comprehendas illum jocum esse :-)
They either should have charged more, or had some sort of raffle.
The 1950's called, they want their delusions back.
More importantly, the 1960's-1980's called and want to know where the hell their cheap power is.
Even my crappy Macintosh can copy a file in 17 minutes instead of 20.
Not only have they violated Microsoft's patents, but by copying from anyone at all they have violated /.'s patent on duplication of a pre-existing entity.
They did pay to buy NeXT, even if in reality NeXT took over Apple.
How is I/O Kit, which isn't even compatible with other Mach-like systems, going to be compatible with the same devices as other Unix systems? That's like saying that BeOS should support the same hardware Windows NT does because they're both kernel-based.
Not only is this a dupe, but the summary claims that the link is a Wikipedia article. Guess what--not every site running MediaWiki is WIkipedia. In fact, I'm pretty sure that only Wikipedia is Wikipedia.
I don't know about that, but gas is certainly being expelled from one of his orifices.
Some of us OS X users enjoy our cutting-edge 1990 technology.
To be terribly pedantic, Xerox invented neither the GUI nor the computer mouse. Douglas Engelbart did.
But I don't see how creationism helps, anway? How does it account for the fact that God has to from from something? If you trace the creation of God back to it's furthest roots, you'll hit a brick wall every time.
Where is this fabled magical Higgs Boson? How are we supposed to see the curvature of space-time? In fact, these two explanations contradict each other. Scientists can't even make up their minds, and we are supposed to beleive such an outlandish theory?
Now don't tell me that seeing things falling is evidence of gravity. That's as stupid as saying that seeing creatures change over time is evidence of evolution. Sure, we may have a fossil record for evolution. We may be able to explain the basic mechanics by which organisms evolve. The corpus of evidence for it may be larger than that of gravity.
But it doesn't matter. Gravity is a fantasy, and so is evolution. We should give equal time to Aristotelean mechanics in the classroom, unless we want to be biased in favor of English faith over Greek faith.
I would also argue that the Intelligent Design people are not serious advocates of formal teleological arguments, and most of them probably haven't even heard of Paley.
You can see just how horrible it is versus handwritten HTML.
Everyone but me seemed to dislike the hockey puck mouse, but it did force you to put less strain on your wrist.
...but will it also protect us from the terrible secret of space?
People did want to ban comic books in the 50's.
c is a constant. Say that at location A there is little gravity affecting light. It takes a time of X to travel Y distance. At location B there is more gravity affecting light. It still takes time X to travel Y distance. If the speed of light is "slower," your perception of time is also altered.
Of course, if different parts of the galaxy have different laws of physics, or if the laws of physics change over time, that would make things a lot harder.